Jim, I've had some problems replying to your message #1589 (despite its provocative qualities) with anything fresh. I found it difficult getting my mind around the many aspects of the sub-thread that has evolved, thus far. It appeared that it was going in the direction of "what's more important to modern life, electricity or telecomms.." so I'll address that, in part, first. Some of the following is long-winded, so bear with me.
As I opined upstream, all modern electronic communications systems derive in one way or another 'from' electricity, mostly the variety generated by the power companies. Therefore, without the latter, the former, as we know it today, doesn't exist. Mobile wireless systems, too, depend on power generation from automobile generators/alternators. And handheld wireless units depend on chargers that plug into your favorite Edison plant to keep them going. To say nothing of the base stations that suck electrons from cables in the street.
"We started this topic, I think, because the availability of electrical power underlies every technology we've discussed on this thread. The availability of energy, and therefore power, is a matter of national interest, IMO."
Agreed. But just as telecom is inextricably linked to, and dependent, on electricity, I would posit that the power utilities, too, could not transmit, perform phase angle regulation, monitor, do load-shedding (which is a naughty term in the industry) and control transmission routes without telecom. Today's utilities tie into every substation and high voltage node through SCADA** systems. All of the above are entirely dependent at this stage of the game on fail-safe communications.
** Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (for energy distribution systems)
Likewise, most large industrial-mechanical and office-automation systems, which are powered by utility generated electricity, are are almost always governed by remote computing over a municipal or enterprise network that supports telemetry and control functions over telecom lines. I stipulated "most." Those which don't yet, will.
Almost every business of size today would come to a grinding standstill without either telecoms _OR_ electricity. In the event of power outages, large businesses have either implemented onsite generation, or they have a disaster recovery plan that places them at a ComDisco or SunGaurd recovery site during an outage, where 24 x 7 power generation [and telecommunications] is assured.
To net it out, the generation and delivery of electric power today is just as dependent on telecoms as telecoms is, at the root, dependent on electricity. It doesn't have to be that way. If we remove some of the sophistication, power generation could surely take place without it. But that is not the situation today. What we have today is a tightly integrated electric power industry using telecommunications surveillance and controls. We have a true hand in hand situation here. But that doesn't mean that the power companies can't go it alone. Most of the times. Read on.
For example, one only needs to look at what the utilities themselves have done. They've created elaborate telecom overlays for their own surveillance purposes in the way of vast fiber optic networks that span their entire serving areas in support of SCADA systems. Most of these networks are even linked with others on the grid. Indeed, many of these have morphed to the point where the utilities have begun productizing their telecom resources to compete with the carriers and MSOs.
These f-o networks are their "primary" source of telecoms, both for internal enterprise communications, and for surveillance and transmission (of electricity) controls. And just as the telcos use onsite generator backup, the utilities, too, have a backup system in place for telecoms. Only, in this case the utilities backup services come from the common carriers.
-------
"We got into a discussion of nuclear power as a rational alternative, and I put forward the example of France, who I thought had got the whole public interest/policy/planning/regulatory thing just right... But the application of the idea was only to nuclear power (with its special concerns), and the greater questions of the impending energy crisis."
As an ex-bellhead, who still gets flashbacks every now and then, standardization on a grand scale is nothing foreign to me. However, just as I always saw something sinister in the Bell System's stranglehold on public networking (prior to the first divestiture, Carterfone notwithstanding) I see something similarly sinister in the French nuclear scheme. At the base, it's a very fundamental philosophical issue, which I think some will differ on, purely on the grounds of freedom of choice to pursue alternative enterprises and methods, and for other reasons that are reflective of a free society.
The argument seems to be that because the French have arrived at what appears to be a safe, uniform level of service, no other scheme, or no other combination of schemes could possibly work equally well. This argument, IMO, is a convenient cover-up for another reason for things being the way they are there.
There's a basic principle at stake here, which the French have a history of compromising. Although, if the general population has no problems with it in France, then it's okay for them. They did something similar to this in the past in telecoms circa 1982. Of course, I'm referring to their Minitel service, a crude form of dumb terminal network by today's standards, although it was rather innovative at the time, despite some of its restrictive effects for those who did not want to use it.
To wit, in order to ensure that the general public used Minitel the government decided to post all telephone directory numbers in a database that was accessible only by the Minitel terminal, and at the same time discontinued the distribution of telephone books -i.e., white pages and yellow pages - and directory assistance operators. To be clearer on this point, end users no longer had access to hard copy telephone books. This had the effect of forcing telephone subs to use the Minitel terminal. I mean... c'mon.
"In many areas, we are finding that deregulation is failing us. At the same time, we are finding that regulation, in the form of the bone-readed indecision of Canada's National Energy Board, or in some areas of the FCC's jurisdiction, is failing us, too. We should reconsider the benefits of regulation, and attempt to find a regulatory balance better than the old ones."
The "we" that you are referring to is assumed to be the elected government officials and their appointees (such as the commissioners on the FCC/FTC/XYZ), no?
"The ideal is to provide guidelines within which industry can do what it does best: innovate and produce."
Now you're cooking with Gas! <Oops. Maybe I should choose a different saying in this case.>
"While I never intended the comments to be translated to telecomms, I believe that the Euro approach to regulation has some benefits. They have not entirely deregulated, and they regard telecomms as an area in which the public has a vital interest."
I've been led to believe that that which has not been liberalised yet, will be. The recent wireless auctions, and opening up the local loop, were supposed to be next. Would you, or someone else, kindly expand on this point?
"In some repects, there is much less regulatory uncertainty about what the future will be: that seems to be the result of good planning, with input from industry, the public, and governments, on a pan-European basis."
Yes, and we can turn to GSM here again to make the point. Was GSM something on the order of what the French did with nuclear, or was GSM something that the ITU, in cahoots with the PTT entities, came to terms on collectively through committee? In any event, it does seem to have benefited them from an any-to-any standpoint, regardless of the merits, or d-merits, of the framework itself.
"I do not know if the balance struck by pan-European standardization/regulatory bodies is 'harmful' to industry. My personal observation is that it does not appear to be."
In the end, what's good for the French populace may not be palatable to North Americans. There are cultural and political differences to take into account. This would not be the first area in which the two cultures have differed.
FAC |
